Explore the key differences between design-build and design-bid-build project delivery methods to determine the most efficient for your next office renovation.

Understanding Design-Build and Design-Bid-Build Methods

When undertaking a tenant improvement project, it is important to understand the two primary project delivery methods: design-build and design-bid-build.

Design-build

Design-build is a method in which a single entity, known as the design-builder, is responsible for both the design and construction of the project. This project delivery method brings interior designers, architects, project managers, and contractors together from the beginning to collaborate and work as a cohesive team. Since design-build combines the design and construction phases into a sole contract, the project delivery team can begin work before all drawings have been finalized. Designers are involved in the project at all stages and can make modifications as necessary.

Design-bid-build

On the other hand, the design-bid-build or split process is a traditional, owner-driven project delivery model where the design and construction phases are separate contracts. The owner contracts with architecture and engineering teams to design a project and then with a general contractor to complete the build. The owner, architects, and engineers collaborate to finalize the design before inviting contractors to bid on the project. Once a contractor is selected, they assume responsibility for the construction process, submitting change orders and quotes for any necessary alterations. Upon completion, the contractor reviews the final project with the owner before handing over the finished product.

 

Mitigating Office Renovation Risks with Design-Build

In this section, we will explore the common risks and pitfalls associated with the design-bid-build project delivery method, including communication breakdowns, increased costs and budget overruns, timeline delays, and financial risks.

Risk of Miscommunication

In the design-bid-build model, the project owner first hires an architect to design the project. The completed design is then sent out for bids, and the contractor with the lowest bid is selected. This separation of design and construction phases can create a communication gap, as the contractor may have limited input during the design phase. As a result, the contractor may encounter challenges during the construction phase, such as discrepancies or ambiguities in the design, which can lead to costly rework. Furthermore, oftentimes we find

By contrast, the design-build approach integrates the design and construction phases, allowing for better communication and collaboration between the architect and contractor. This helps to minimize the risk of miscommunication and ensures that the project requirements are clearly understood from the beginning. With a design-build team working together from the start, potential issues can be identified and addressed early on, reducing the likelihood of costly rework or delays. Furthermore, in an integrated firm interior designers and project managers are working alongside each other in the same workspace, streamlining communication even further. Emails and phone calls can get tricky to organize, especially in a hybrid world. However, when all project team members are working together under one roof project insight is shared on the regular.

Increased costs and budget overruns

One of the potential pitfalls of the traditional split process (design-bid-build) is the increased risk of costs and budget overruns. In this model, the project owner hires an architect to design the project without considering the input of the contractor. As a result, the design may not align with the project’s budget or practical construction considerations.

Once the design is completed and sent out for bids, the contractor with the lowest bid is selected. However, the lowest bid does not always guarantee the best quality or adherence to the project requirements. The selected contractor may encounter unforeseen challenges during the construction phase, leading to additional costs and budget overruns.

In contrast, the design-build approach allows for better cost control and budget management. The integration of the design and construction phases enables the design-build team to consider cost implications from the early stages of the project. The contractor’s input during the design phase helps to ensure that the design aligns with the project’s budget and feasibility. This collaborative approach can help prevent unexpected cost overruns and keep the project within budget.

Office Renovation Timeline Delays

The traditional split process of design-bid-build can also be prone to timeline delays. This model typically completes the design phase before the construction phase begins. Any changes or revisions required during the construction phase may delay the project timeline.

On the other hand, the design-build approach offers more efficient project timelines. Since the design and construction phases are integrated, changes or revisions can be addressed in real-time, minimizing delays. Additionally, the design-build team can work together to streamline the construction process, ensuring a more efficient and timely completion of the project. On several occasions, designers are informed to select design details with shorter lead times to accommodate project schedules. This ability to work hand-in-hand allows for more efficient timelines.

Mitigating Financial Risks

The design-build model offers a way to mitigate financial risks compared to the traditional split process of design-bid-build. In the design-bid-build framework, the project owner assumes more financial risk, as the design is completed before the contractor is selected. If the bids received exceed the project owner’s budget, the owner may need to make compromises or seek additional funding.

In contrast, the design-build approach allows for better cost control and risk mitigation. The integration of the design and construction phases enables the design-build team to consider cost implications from the early stages. This collaborative approach ensures that the design aligns with the project’s budget and feasibility, reducing the risk of unexpected costs or budget overruns.

 

 

Final Thoughts: Selecting the Ideal Method for Your Next Office Renovation

Choosing between design-build and design-bid-build ultimately depends on your specific project needs and priorities. A project owner must weigh expertise, risk tolerance, and project size, among other factors, to determine the best delivery method for a project.

Design-build is the recommended approach if time is a critical factor and you require a fast-track delivery. The integrated nature of the process allows for parallel workstreams, reducing overall project duration. Design-build also offers greater flexibility for accommodating changes and modifications throughout the project.

On the other hand, if you have a well-defined project scope and prefer a more traditional and sequential process, design-bid-build may be suitable. This method allows for a detailed design phase and multiple bids from contractors, providing more options for cost comparison and selection.

 

 

Make Your Next Office Renovation Project a Success with the Right Partner

To make the right choice, consider factors such as project complexity, timeline, budget, and your level of involvement in the decision-making process. Consulting with experienced professionals can also help you evaluate the pros and cons of each approach and determine the best fit for your office renovation project.

Ready to streamline your next office renovation? Contact Us today to learn how Aura’s integrated design-build approach can deliver efficiency, cost savings, and seamless project execution.

Back to Our Blogs